The Notion of Justice and Jihad - Essay Example

Justice and Jihad The term “justice,” carries with it a very western definition; and a definition which is not necessarily applied by non-western cultures, especially the Middle Eastern cultures from which originated the rise and spread of Islam. The notion of “justice,” is one that has transcended the geographical boundaries of the America’s borders. American “justice” has infiltrated nearly every facet of foreign culture and society around the globe; even though those cultures and societies do not arise out of American traditions, they have nonetheless, for whatever reason, bought into the notion of a western definition of “justice,” and have proceeded to adopt that definition. All perhaps except Muslim culture and societies, which are governed by the rules of Islam and not by the rules of the governed. Under Islam, jihad is justice, thereby causing Islamic justice to come into direct conflict with western justice and giving rise to an increased and fierce battle between the philosophies and cultures that exists today. There are several concepts which form the basis of western justice; they are that the rights of the governed are enumerated in a document that referred to as a “constitution.” The Constitution, wherein rest the enumerated rights of the governed, provides for several very basic rights, from which all other rights stem; those rights as contained in the Constitution come under the heading of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, for those less familiar with American history, was created by the First Continental Congress of the United States in September of 1774 (Burdick, 1992, p. 7). The document is somewhat plain spoken in language: “. . . embodying the substance of that of the Stamp Act Congress, and declaring that the colonists were entitled to life, liberty and property, and to all the rights and immunities of subjects born within the realm of England, to the common law of England, to the benefit of the statutes in force when they emigrated and which they found applicable to their new conditions, and to the privileges and immunities provided for in their charters and laws; that the foundation of English liberty and of all free government , is a right in the people to participate in their legislative council; and that the keeping of a standing army in the colonies without their consent in times of peace was unlawful (p. 7).” From this, of course, rose the remainder of the enumerated and clarified rights, which continued to give be discussed and amended and comprise America’s current Constitution. It is a document that has gained credibility around the world, able to insert itself into the culture and government processes of other societies and cultures because it has proven vastly successful in America, which is a multicultural society. The genius behind the American Constitution, of course, is that it is fluid in nature, movable as opposed to steadfast and, therefore, remaining indestructible (a debatable statement, yes, but one for another forum, not this forum). Thusly, countries such as the post-Apartheid South Africa have incorporated into their own “constitutions” those concepts and philosophies of the American Constitution perceived as the basis for America’s success as a nation (Hootnick, 2003, p. 1). The South African constitution holds that: “Section 9. (1) Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. Section 10 Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected. Section 12 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person, which includes the right – (c) to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources (p. 1).” While in Muslim culture, being a culture that originates with the philosophy of Islam, jihad is justice, one in response to the challenge or threat against Islam, from which all other Muslim cultural identity stems. There is no separation of state and church in Muslim culture. There are those, of course, who would argue that the word “jihad,” does not mean “holy war (Firestone, 1999, p. 16).” “The semantic meaning of the Arabic term jihad has no relation to the holy war or even war in general. It derives, rather from the root j.h.d., the meaning of which is to strive, exert oneself, or take extraordinary pains. Jihad is a verbal noun of the third Arabic root of jahada, which is defined classically as “exerting ones utmost power, efforts, endeavors, or ability in contending with an object of disapprobation (p. 16).” And that is and of itself an exercise in arguable semantics, but for contemporary society and culture about which we now speak here, jihad is understood to be a “holy war,” in defense of any all threats to Islam. Thus, in keeping with the present times and conditions, we might clearly see and understand how the terms stand in the minds of those who purport to stand them with the military strength and force that has since the inception of both prevailed in inflicting upon the world an unleashed violence and destruction in defense of those terms. For some, certainly for Muslims, Islam, which was handed down to the Prophet Mohammad direct from God in an oral tradition; is the Word of God. The third installment of the World of God if one considers the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Quran. However, unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam holds that it is the responsibility of all Muslims, all the people of Islam, to work towards the protection of Islam, and, like Christianity, to carry that word to non-believers (Firestone, p. 13). To that end, we have seen the division of Muslims, following the death their Prophet Mohammad, as was the case with Christianity, into different sects or groups; and within those groups and sects has long existed conflict and violence in support of one group’s interpretation of Islam over the other group’s interpretation of Islam. However, it is the threat to Christianity that gave birth to the “Holy War,” and the notion of Jihad as the Islamic response to the threat against Islam by outside forces, especially Christianity (p. 13). “The incredible success of the Conquest and the great civilization that arose along with it represented Europe’s greatest threat, both politically and intellectually, for a thousand years. From the conquest of Spain in the early eighth century to the siege of Vienna by the Ottoman Turks in 1683, Islam represented a threat to the very physical existence of Christendom (p. 13).” Thus, at least for Muslims, Jihad, Holy War, is a just war. That the westernized, and especially American interpretation of justice versus jihad, and which holds that jihad is unjust, is subject to cultural interpretation. As has been clearly demonstrated here, for Muslims, jihad is justice. Terrorism, unconventional as it is for the modern world and the ruling super powers to accept, is a device of the Holy War, jihad, in defense of what Muslims perceive to be a threat to the existence of Islamic tradition. Thereby making it, at least for Muslims, a just, or justified war. References Burdick, C. K. (1922). The Law of the American Constitution: Its Origin and Development. New York: G.P. Putnams Sons. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from Questia database: http://questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5756463 Firestone, R. (1999). Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from Questia database: http://questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=90368247 Hootnick, A. (2003, Wntr). Improvised Justice: Constitution vs. Reality in South Africa. American Scholar, 72, 53+. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from Questia database: http://questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002514033 Read More